Matewan was interesting in that it used one smaller region, West Virginia, of the Appalachian to represent the whole Appalachia.  I think with just that to start off with, it would receive less criticism because if there is negativity it can all be blamed on just thagt region and not Appalachia as a whole.  If there is something positive, people can say that West Virginia represents the whole A region.  Also, Deliverance seems to represent Appalachian people pretty negatively.  It puts them in the stereotypes that they have been put into so many times before.  Matewan more so tells a story, and takes people through real life situations and how it would be forming the coal mining union, the fighting that took place, and how life really was during that time frame.  It seems to dig deeper into early Appalachian’s life instead of just broadcasting them as broke down hillbillies.  The movie seems to follow a steady them and really educate people.  Whoever the director Matewan was really had the intention of giving an honest idea of the labor union and controversy they had with company operators.  Overall, I think that Matewan sits better with Appalachian people which is why it receives less criticism.

When searching through various websites, one stuck out to me.  It talked about the “Deliverance Stigma” written by Barbara Taylor Woodall.  She is from Appalachia so that gave an Appalachian view point on the movie. Even with the movie being shot in the region, Woodall still felt that it gave Appalachia a negative connotation.  She also mentions that the movie follows the common stereotypes of Appalachian people being brokedown, hillbillies, farm people, mean, and behind the society.  The people that were used in this movie were actually from the region.  Woodall feels that they did not even know what was going on.  Hollywood just came in and pushed there way filming what they wanted to film.  The movie was 40 years old at the time that Woodall wrote this, but she feels it still left a scar.  She mentions all of these concerns because, for her personally, it has offended her.  I believe that she is trying to be the voice for many more Appalachian people who want to say this but don’t have the platform to do so.  It should be kind of obvious that this movie would offend people from that region.  It is basically people from the outside, again, coming in and further damaging a pretty bad reputation.

What is it that makes people associate themselves with different regions of the Appalachian rather than just saying they are a part of the big group as a whole?

When talking to a person from the Appalachian region, do they take pride in their history and where they are from or would they rather separate completely and be away from the stereotypes?

How does the Appalachian region compare to the rest of America?

As an Appalachian does a person ever feel behind in society? As far as politics, urbanization, and culture?

What is an Appalachians definition of a “redneck” or “hillbilly”?

Anyone who is familiar with a drive by shooting, knows that nothing good can come out of it.  It leads to damage and sometimes killing of people.  Donesky, referring to what Jon Ed Pearce stated, believes that The Kentucky Cycle did just that.  It damaged the name of 19th Century Appalachian dwellers as well as killed their character of those people.  After the play, many viewed the region as full of people who were “mean, quaint, violent, low-down and sorry” in the words of Donesky.  That did nothing but slander those peoples names.  There were definitely some genuine and nice people in the Appalachian reason just like there were mean people in other regions.  All the play really seemed to do in many viewers eyes was further carry on the stereotypes that were already there in a negative light.  That seems to be the common theme with this region.  What makes it worse is that Schenkkan is not even from the Appalachian region.  He literally stopped by, shot it down and went on with his business.  This fits every definition of the phrase drive-by shooting.  Appalachians take the most offense to the play because they feel that he has done nothing but killed their name.

If a person is not from the Appalachian region, they may be lost as to why this play would offend anyone in the first place.  The play seems to give a lot of insight into how the region lived during this time by giving little snippets and stories that follow an Appalachian lifestyle.  I think where people get offended that are from the region is that the play does not give full details about why certain things take place.  For example, a person watching the play may believe all Appalachians are cruel, violent people without knowing the story behind the murders.  Appalachians may also get offended with the dialogue of the play as it may make them seem less intelligent than what they really are.  Personally, I can understand somewhat why Appalachians would be offended, but I believe too much of a big deal is being put on it also.  The author was not trying to pick on the region or discredit it.  He was trying to put on a play that gave good representation on how the region came to be what it was.  It would help if an authentic Appalchian helped guide what is already true in the play and go on from there.

Part one of the Kentucky Cycle is significant in that it vividly illustrates some of the lifestyles during the development of the Appalachian region. To go along with coal mining, groups were often formed with colleagues and even more so families.  These bonds were so strong that anything pertaining to business, rivalries, and common life they all took place in together.  There was a series of killings that took place over trade in Part One.  Some of the people killed were tom who was murdered by Sam and Sam who was killed by Michael in a trade with the Indians.  Michael had a son who was responsible for his killing and another after a deal was made.  All of this just shows hoe much of a hassle trading was and how dangerous it was to live in this area at this time.  any rivalries formed and people changed up quick so families and groups always had to have their heads on a swivel.  One common rivalry, and possibly the most popular of any two families, was the Hatfields and the McCoys. part one of The Kentucky Cycle really gives a lot of insight into the way life was lived and the challenges that these people faced on the day to day basis.

Music had a heavy impact on the Appalachian region especially when coal mining brought so many different people to the area.  It was a way of entertainment for many while it was a way for coal miners to put there struggles into songs. Eastern Europeans brought some of their musical traditions over while joining the  coal labor force.  African-Americans also had their influence on the musical culture.  They brought a new style of music as well as the banjo which was brought by slaves.  Women, who sometimes did not do much more than stand by their husband were able to thrive in the music industry. While limited, women like Lily Mae Ledford grew very popular and had a strong force in music.  Music was so significant because it was a relief.  It brought the labor industry together and it allowed them to basically vent about their struggles.  Music did not stop any struggle, but it just made life easier with them.  In all points and time, music can be found as kind of an outlet from struggle.  Even in other instances like slavery for example, which sometimes took place in completely different regions, the people used music as a way to get through tough times.

What Ballard is trying to get is that some people understand the Hillbilly culture and some base the culture off of what they see.  There is nothing wrong with taking after a culture or buying there products in my opinion.  That sometimes shows that people have respect for it even though they are not actually apart of those people.  For example, hip-hop is considered to be a part of the black culture but other races were not allowed to show interest in it, there would never be an icon like Eminem.  Purchasing hillbilly products does support the culture.  The products should not be limited to anyone if that is what they want.  Of course those who are hillbillies will have more of an understanding but that doesn’t mean that other people can nit get involved with the products.  I am comfortable purchasing those kind of products because they’re open to the world and I’ve seen plenty of examples of people getting involved with other cultures.  Personally, I am not very interested in this type of clothing or product, but if I did want it I would be perfectly fine with buying it.  I think that Ballard was pointing out the people who are apart of the culture as well as those who want to show respect to it.

The Appalachian region has definitely been depicted in a way that is probably more negative than positive.  There are many stereotypes that go along with the region from the outside without even getting to know the people.   When they are looked at as ignorant, backwards, and illiterate that is because there was a standard set to depict them in that way.  It is most likely because they are pretty isolated from the rest of the society.  Any time a group is isolated, they are usually going to get unpopular opinions from those around them.  Whether the people are doing well or not they will still get certain stereotypes put on them.  The interest of people that were not in the Appalachian were served. The media potrayed the Appalachian in this way so that they would be alright with the society that they were in.  Any society has good and bad.  The media focused more on the people that were notso glamorous in the Appalchian region and used their ways of life to set a tone for the whole region.  Looking through the chapters it can be seen that many of the Appalachian people are very intelligent, hardworking, and are all around good people.  It is better to actually get to know the region rather than follow the stereotypes.

In his introduction, Billings vividly covers many stereotypes associated with the Appalachian region.  Stereotypes in this region follow the lines of hillbillies, country music, farm labor, and racism amongst other things.  These stereotypes are represented in shows such as Dukes of Hazzard and Beverly Hillbillies, which is what society uses to form their stereotypes. Another common stereotype is that the people of Appalachia are behind progressively. Because of their “simple” way of life, the are not as advanced as other regions.  Appalachians are viewed as being economically isolated as well has having distinctiveness from all other regions.  This does not at all prove that they are behind.  It may prove that they just progressed in a different ways than other regions using what was most efficient for them.  By utilizing raw tools to sustain life, who is to say that the Appalachians are not more advanced than everyone else?  A lot of this falls under technology.  Just because a society is not as politically advanced or economically advanced does not mean that they are behind as people.  That is the false representation that people have of the Appalachian reason.  Though they are hard, laboring people, who are isolated from others does not lessen their intelligence. That being said, the Appalachian people are progressive in their own way.